politics in comics

[Tiamatty]

Politics and history are best learned in text books and life experience. Not comic books, any kind of fiction or any biased news channels. News should be for reporting facts and events/incidents/current events. Not towing the line for whatever party they favor so they can get ratings and money.

Art and entertainment have always commented on politics and history. You are arguing against one of the core functions of art.

Comics are art. Which means comics should absolutely comment on politics and history. Because that's what art does. Do you think Shakespeare should have shut up and stuck to dick jokes? Is that an opinion you hold? Because your post sure suggests that's what you think.

Damn. The very idea of suggesting art shouldn't be used for commenting on politics and history. Absurd.

[jackolover]

On the other hand, do you really want people who would make a decision about going to war based on a comic to participate in elections?





At the most basic level, if a political question is worth writing about, it is worthy of good writing.

Saying that bad writing is okay because it is comics does not under-sell politics, it undermines the value of the comic industry as a whole. If comics are a place where bad writing is lauded (or at least not punished), then why bother with comics?




I accept that we are going to get crap. But, I am going to call it crap.




Spencer is a unique case (which is why I avoided talking about him earlier). At first glance, he is the most qualified person in the industry to write about politics. (Look at his background in politics.) Honestly, if I lived in OH, I probably would have considered supporting Spencer and his party. Spencer is also a damned good writer at a technical level. His non-political work is very readable. And, he can write about ideas.


But, his ethics and his partisanship more than balance against all of that.




Politics is often a question of principle or ideology. Biology and physics are pretty unambiguous. Politics (or philosophy), less so.

There is also a practical consideration. People are much less likely to think that they understand physics or biology based on reading fiction.

However, people's politics and ideology are often impacted by what they read (fiction or otherwise). While readers are responsible for what they read and how they use it, there is arguably an ethical obligation on the writers.

Consider Spencer. He is closely affiliated with a political ideology. He is not a believer, he is an operative. His run on Captain America could fairly be seen as an attempt to create opportunities supporters of his party and ideology. The vicious partisanship that Spencer projects could be an attempt to manipulate voters.


There is nothing wrong with an ideologue making a case for their beliefs. But, it should be done well, and honestly. Politicomics often fail at one or both of those things.





ASIO? Does Australia censor political commentary or entertainment?



Please elaborate.




A docu-drama is one thing. And, Nixon is good fodder for that sort of project.

But, I would think that people should be informed more by news than by art or entertainment.




I would not mind seeing Marvel or DC consider the question of where masked heroes fall on the political spectrum. (This will never be a mainline project, for obvious reason.)

Are masked heroes liberal interventionists or conservatives that act outside a flawed government?




I want comics to be about ideas. I do not need comics to be about the world outside my window, because I can look out the damned window. I can read a newspaper.

"Red Son" and "Squadron Supreme" (1985) have more to say about what we should think about the role of the state than "Dark Reign", President Lex Luthor or any of the Trump riffs that have become common in the last few years.




Exactly. At that point, Stone was not even talking about Nixon. He was talking about a Nixon fantasy, while presenting it as Nixon.

I suppose it could be a stretch for ASIO to censor entertainment. The local comic creators seem to keep to pretty tame subjects anyway, so ASIO stretching to gag comics doesn’t seem to be a possibility, although I wish local creators would include political commentary.

As for that World paper I mentioned, I tried looking it up in my search engine, but couldn’t find it. Apart from saying journalists put away their conservative hats and called a spade a spade for once. Sorry I can’t elaborate too much there. I thought it was for the year 2000 anniversary, but my memory could be off and it was during the 1990’s done as a novelty.

Thanks for giving an opinion on what you want in your comics. Myself, I do like my comics to show the hypocrisy of government and power like Dark Reign. The Bush Administration instated Norman Osborn out of expediency and as contempt for super heroes, and the administration got what it deserved with the Secret Invasion because of its lop-sided cynicism. That sort of political pointing out how government having a particular agenda and gets itself into trouble, is appreciated. If writers point out Trumps cynicism as well, I for one would appreciate it too. I don’t see the harm in that. I see a caricaturist pointing out transgretion where he feels it lies. Everything is up for grabs in politics. There shouldn’t be any censoring in entertainment, after all its just opinion driven anyway. When Ditko pushed his particular agenda it was allowed. We don’t have to agree with it or even like it, but creators should be able to put some of their POV into their work when they want.

[jackolover]

Oh, I don't expect them to be experts. I even said as much.



I have no issue with a writer commenting on the social issues of the day, but I don't want them to be uninformed. If I want uninformed opinions I can read them on Facebook for free.



Again, as I said in my previous post, I welcome social commentary. But make sure you have a basic understanding of what you're saying. It's not hard. Thirty minutes of research will be more than enough to hit the major points of most political/social issues.

You'll also note I'm not saying writers have to agree with my politics. I enjoy reading commentary from people who have different views than I do. But a uninformed opinion is worthless. Comics cost 3-5 bucks. I'm not interested in paying for a commentary from someone who doesn't care enough to do their own due diligence.



I'm not saying it should be gagged. Quite the opposite actually. I'm saying a writer, who gets paid for the job, should do their research before writing their script. And that applies no matter what they're writing about, be it politics or history or whatever.



I want both, actually. I want books that are the world outside my window, and I also want modern day myth. And I want comics to communicate whatever the author is passionate about and interested in. But I won't give that writer free rein to make up whatever drivel they want and pass it off as an actual story.

Yes, I should have been more specific than to state an ”Ill-informed political writer” and more a writer who is a casual political writer. I don’t expect all writers to be part of a political party before they can write about politics in comics.

As far as making sure a writer knows what he is commenting on, nobody can put stipulations on that kind of thing. It’s opinion and personal POV and to suggest they have to comply to your definition of expertise in politics is unreasonable.

Yeah but they are not writing politics or history. They are writing comics, so the stringent source based expert writing you refer to isn’t necessary in comics.

Thanks for your opinion on what you want in your comics. But it is difficult to quantify what you opinion is about “made up” whatever they like. Maybe because comic writers write fiction, and, they aren’t restricted by fans stipulations about what is or isn’t made up.

[jackolover]

Oh I like this. MARVEL was built on the idea that, unlike other superhero comics of the time, these characters would be normal people with extraordinary gifts who still lived in a world in which rent was paid, heroes worked real jobs, had real issues, pathos, etc. and weren't just constantly fighting bad guys. Part of being a normal person would be falling into certain ideologies; religious, political and philosophical. The challenge for the writer is to be able to portray a character in this ideology genuinely, which can be difficult if it's an ideology he or she does not subscribe to, especially when it comes to partisan politics. If you're liberal, you may tend to portray a conservative poorly, or vice versa.

Civil War was a pretty good portrayal of the debate over the Patriot Act (Give the government more power to spy on you for your protection or harm). Iron Man represented the protection of the people by the government and Cap represented the protection of people from the government, but both arguments had merit based on perspective; if I was a non-powered civilian, worried about Nitro blowing up my kids, I'd side with Stark. If I was a meta-human worried about being punished for being a hero, I'd probably side with Cap.

I'd like to see more stories that show that rift within the super-hero community (without it turning into another hero v hero cross-over event, just like... social tension, arguments, or different approaches to crime fighting) like we see within the United States. It's easy to paint those we disagree with as wrong. It's for a skilled writer to find the merits and flaws of both sides of contentious issue.

Yes, I can agree with this. Just the easy, and unemotional style it addresses the subject of politics in comics, points to the intellectual approach to this. I like to read those approaches myself.

Mind you Civil War was one of those story structures that held a lot of different opinions and the hype attached to that story was so inflammatory within the fan base. But it did show examples of multiple writers having different opinions on the same political controversy. CW - A very welcome commentary on the subject in comics, so I don’t see how this (CW) is any different to the current politics portrayed in comics either.

[bloodofthegods]

Art and entertainment have always commented on politics and history. You are arguing against one of the core functions of art.

Comics are art. Which means comics should absolutely comment on politics and history. Because that's what art does. Do you think Shakespeare should have shut up and stuck to dick jokes? Is that an opinion you hold? Because your post sure suggests that's what you think.

Damn. The very idea of suggesting art shouldn't be used for commenting on politics and history. Absurd.

The core function of art is escapism. Much like the core function of drugs.

Comics can comment on politics all they want. But anyone forming their ideas on politics via fiction are not to be taken seriously. It's like querying a four time divorce on lasting relationships. Yeah maybe he/she has good advice but it's not going to be my go to.

Also people only quantify politics in fiction when the politics in fiction support an echo chamber that they feel good about supporting. As can be seen well in this thread.

[Tiamatty]

The core function of art is escapism. Much like the core function of drugs.

Comics can comment on politics all they want. But anyone forming their ideas on politics via fiction are not to be taken seriously. It's like querying a four time divorce on lasting relationships. Yeah maybe he/she has good advice but it's not going to be my go to.

Also people only quantify politics in fiction when the politics in fiction support an echo chamber that they feel good about supporting. As can be seen well in this thread.

No. This is not true. It's really not. Art serves many purposes. One of those actually is to comment on both current and historical events in ways that provoke the audience to consider them in new ways. That has been true for as long as art exists. One of the oldest known plays is Lysistrata, which was a commentary on the Peloponnesian War. By your logic, 1984 shouldn't be taken seriously.

Some art is escapism. Art can be escapism, if that's what the creators choose it to be. But art can also be fire-spitting political diatribes.

Attempts to define what art "should be" is one of the most balls-out idiotic stances that can possibly be taken. It cannot be stressed enough that "art is escapism" is a stupid, clueless, uninformed opinion to have. There is not the tiniest bit of validity to that opinion. It is 100% wrong. Each person can decide what they want out of art, and if a person just wants escapism, that's a valid choice. But to claim that art is meant to be escapism? That is not valid. It is wrong. It is objectively, factually wrong. It is a rejection of the very essence of art.

And the idea that people shouldn't let art shape their views on politics? Still wrong. Still stupid. Still failing to understand the point of art. Ideally, when art does comment on current and historical events, it should make people think about those things in new ways that they hadn't considered before. And, again, it's been the case for as long as art has existed. People should be looking to art to help them think about politics. Art is great for it. Sure, ideally it would be combined with reading non-fiction work about the topics, too. But the idea that people shouldn't let their political views be shaped by the art they consume is asinine.

Art reflects life. Life is political. Therefore, art is political.

[Kintor]

No. This is not true. It's really not. Art serves many purposes. One of those actually is to comment on both current and historical events in ways that provoke the audience to consider them in new ways. That has been true for as long as art exists. One of the oldest known plays is Lysistrata, which was a commentary on the Peloponnesian War. By your logic, 1984 shouldn't be taken seriously.

Some art is escapism. Art can be escapism, if that's what the creators choose it to be. But art can also be fire-spitting political diatribes.

If you go back even further, into the Greek archaic period, you find the oral poetry of Homer, his famous epics on the Trojan War and the hero Odysseus' journey home afterwards. These epics were not political diatribes but rather sources of entertainment, a mix of history and mythology that inspired the imagination with its heroic characters and larger than life events.

You see, Homer didn't judge his audience and he didn't sully himself with the politics of his day. Homer offered moral parables: the anger of Achilles and the cunning of Odysseus, to suggest examples that all Greeks should aspire to in life. This is why Homer's epics are retold time and again even thousands of years later, while Aristophanes' Lysistrata is all but forgotten by modern society.

It’s a lesson that Marvel’s current talent would do well to learn. They have made the mistake of falling into unwanted political diatribes when they should really be writing modern day epics. The heroes of the Marvel universe should lead by example, to be held up as inspirational figures once more, both in their triumphs and their tragic downfalls. Instead Marvel’s heroes are small and petty people, more concerned with micromanaging the lives of their fellow citizens then actually doing anything noteworthy - small politics is the death of heroism.

[Red Robe Jaldari]

Yes, I should have been more specific than to state an ”Ill-informed political writer” and more a writer who is a casual political writer. I don’t expect all writers to be part of a political party before they can write about politics in comics.

As far as making sure a writer knows what he is commenting on, nobody can put stipulations on that kind of thing. It’s opinion and personal POV and to suggest they have to comply to your definition of expertise in politics is unreasonable.

Yeah but they are not writing politics or history. They are writing comics, so the stringent source based expert writing you refer to isn’t necessary in comics.

Thanks for your opinion on what you want in your comics. But it is difficult to quantify what you opinion is about “made up” whatever they like. Maybe because comic writers write fiction, and, they aren’t restricted by fans stipulations about what is or isn’t made up.

If i was leading Marvel i would institute a kindergarten eat your pudding policy. You have to read right wing newspapers and and consume other media in front of a suprevisor so if someone writes about politics in the most mainstream comic books brand in the world at least has an understanding of the nuances off the other side.

[ed2962]

The core function of art is escapism. Much like the core function of drugs.

Art can be escapism, but it's not the only function of art. You could make a similar argument about certain drugs.

Comics can comment on politics all they want. But anyone forming their ideas on politics via fiction are not to be taken seriously. It's like querying a four time divorce on lasting relationships. Yeah maybe he/she has good advice but it's not going to be my go to.

Sure but that's the responsibility of the consumer, not the artists.

Also people only quantify politics in fiction when the politics in fiction support an echo chamber that they feel good about supporting. As can be seen well in this thread.

People also get upset about politics in comics when it's politics they disagree with.

[BBeeryan]

No. This is not true. It's really not. Art serves many purposes. One of those actually is to comment on both current and historical events in ways that provoke the audience to consider them in new ways. That has been true for as long as art exists. One of the oldest known plays is Lysistrata, which was a commentary on the Peloponnesian War. By your logic, 1984 shouldn't be taken seriously.

Some art is escapism. Art can be escapism, if that's what the creators choose it to be. But art can also be fire-spitting political diatribes.

Attempts to define what art "should be" is one of the most balls-out idiotic stances that can possibly be taken. It cannot be stressed enough that "art is escapism" is a stupid, clueless, uninformed opinion to have. There is not the tiniest bit of validity to that opinion. It is 100% wrong. Each person can decide what they want out of art, and if a person just wants escapism, that's a valid choice. But to claim that art is meant to be escapism? That is not valid. It is wrong. It is objectively, factually wrong. It is a rejection of the very essence of art.

And the idea that people shouldn't let art shape their views on politics? Still wrong. Still stupid. Still failing to understand the point of art. Ideally, when art does comment on current and historical events, it should make people think about those things in new ways that they hadn't considered before. And, again, it's been the case for as long as art has existed. People should be looking to art to help them think about politics. Art is great for it. Sure, ideally it would be combined with reading non-fiction work about the topics, too. But the idea that people shouldn't let their political views be shaped by the art they consume is asinine.

Art reflects life. Life is political. Therefore, art is political.

This post is winning!!! That is all.

[Red Robe Jaldari]

Sure but that's the responsibility of the consumer, not the artists.

The reason we have this clustermess is because this is the most irrational market in the history of all markets. Look at the Star Wars sales of Dark Horse and Marvel.

[Prof. Warren]

This dismissive attitude is really part of the problem, Marvel uses politics to divide it's audience and then tries to marginalise dissent when fans pushback. It's the great irony of Marvel's politics, so obsessed with being more inclusive and diverse that they actively target anybody who doesn't conform to the new groupthink. Marvel characters today are almost all devoid of personality, they have the same dialogue and spout the same political talking points. Because since Marvel's politics has become focused solely on personal identity all actions of the individual are now judged in political terms. This is why Marvel stories just aren't fun anymore, nobody is allowed to have fun because that would be an act of political betrayal against the group.

Marvel isn't dividing anybody, whether by politics or anything else.

If the fan "dissent" is truly about the supposed strident political content of their books, it should be easy to provide examples of what you're talking about.

It’s a lesson that Marvel’s current talent would do well to learn. They have made the mistake of falling into unwanted political diatribes when they should really be writing modern day epics. The heroes of the Marvel universe should lead by example, to be held up as inspirational figures once more, both in their triumphs and their tragic downfalls. Instead Marvel’s heroes are small and petty people, more concerned with micromanaging the lives of their fellow citizens then actually doing anything noteworthy - small politics is the death of heroism.

So...no examples from the actual books from you, still. Despite being repeatedly asked to back up your arguments with specifics.

Please list these books with page numbers that you claim have made Marvel all political.

Where's the "unwanted political diatribes" that you speak of?

Point them out.

The fact is you don't know what you're talking about. You're locked into a point of view that has no actual basis in reality.

The "divide" you're imaging exists only in the minds of a group of fans who resent that Marvel doesn't cater solely to them.

[Ascended]

As far as making sure a writer knows what he is commenting on, nobody can put stipulations on that kind of thing. It’s opinion and personal POV and to suggest they have to comply to your definition of expertise in politics is unreasonable.

Actually, I don't think a basic level of research is unreasonable at all. These are works of fiction, yes, so I don't need a peer reviewed journal or cited sources. And once again I do not require a writer be an expert or agree with my personal views. But if a writer is going to tackle a real world topic, then yes I do think a little research is important. This is fiction, but it's still a job and certain standards of quality still need to be upheld.

Lets say someone wrote a story that was not a comedy or a alternate history or anything, and in this story claimed that Rosa Parks fought off an angry mob to secure her seat on a bus. And the writer presented this story as an account of what actually happened. Would you accept that story as a viable non-fictitious interpretation of actual events? I'd hope not. Why then should we accept a writer who can't manage their own due diligence?

Yeah but they are not writing politics or history. They are writing comics, so the stringent source based expert writing you refer to isn’t necessary in comics.

Where did I demand "stringent source-based expert writing?" You're putting words in my mouth and utterly twisting the point I am making. You do understand there's a difference between that and "basic research" right?

Also, I dont believe I ever said that Marvel (or anyone) **must** do anything. When I say I expect a certain amount of intelligence in my comics, that's exactly what I mean; *my* comics. The ones *I* spend money on. If you're happy dropping 3-5 bucks on a title trying to make a social/political point but whose writer can't even bother reading the front page of the paper to have a general grasp on the topic, more power to you.

[WebLurker]

If you go back even further, into the Greek archaic period, you find the oral poetry of Homer, his famous epics on the Trojan War and the hero Odysseus' journey home afterwards. These epics were not political diatribes but rather sources of entertainment, a mix of history and mythology that inspired the imagination with its heroic characters and larger than life events.

You see, Homer didn't judge his audience and he didn't sully himself with the politics of his day. Homer offered moral parables: the anger of Achilles and the cunning of Odysseus, to suggest examples that all Greeks should aspire to in life. This is why Homer's epics are retold time and again even thousands of years later, while Aristophanes' Lysistrata is all but forgotten by modern society.

It’s a lesson that Marvel’s current talent would do well to learn. They have made the mistake of falling into unwanted political diatribes when they should really be writing modern day epics. The heroes of the Marvel universe should lead by example, to be held up as inspirational figures once more, both in their triumphs and their tragic downfalls. Instead Marvel’s heroes are small and petty people, more concerned with micromanaging the lives of their fellow citizens then actually doing anything noteworthy - small politics is the death of heroism.

At the end of the day, the story should be what the author intends it to be, whether that be a political theme (which, as I've said before, is given such a broad definition by some people that it's become as meaningless as the term "SJW"), a character study, a deconstruction, a comedy, etc. All are valid idea to explore through fiction. We the readers have the right to decide what we want and don't want to read, but we don't have the right to limit the author in what they write (and I'm speaking as an author here, albeit an unpublished one).

[Crazy Diamond]

Politics and history are best learned in text books and life experience. Not comic books, any kind of fiction or any biased news channels. News should be for reporting facts and events/incidents/current events. Not towing the line for whatever party they favor so they can get ratings and money.

I don't know how it is where you're at, but textbooks were never very useful for learning history where I grew up. Usually they cut out a lot of information and reflected the views and politics of the people who ran the school boards and the publishers and professors who worked on these texts. This resulted in moments like a kid's textbook calling slaves volunteers. Or never hearing about what the CIA did in countries like Guatemala during the 50s. Or barely mentioning World War I and always skipping over World War II till I took AP World History.

Life experience can only count for so much. My experience is my own and would only reflect my perception of the world around me. That wouldn't necessarily be an accurate account of the present day which later becomes history.

The ratings and money are why any of these channels can stay on the air to begin with. That's what motivates the companies (or governments if you're NPR or Al-Jazeera for example) to contribute to the 24 hour news cycle. The idea that the news is objective is not one that is reflected in how it actually works. Beyond making up stories or scapegoating, I would rather see less of the kind of news which tries to pretend that all ideas are inherently equal or valuable.